<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2019 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Disappearing emails',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_4.0/y.st./weblog/2019/08/13.jpg" alt="Flowers and trimmed bushes" class="framed-centred-image" width="800" height="480"/>
<section id="locked">
	<h2>Locked accounts</h2>
	<p>
		I&apos;ve been locked out of my email account.
		Again.
		I submitted another support ticket to get this fixed, and waited for a response all day.
		It never came.
	</p>
	<p>
		I forget what my goal was, but I intended to look up some capability in my $a[DNS] manager, as I was starting to consider switching email hosts.
		I found I was locked out of the $a[DNS] website too.
		So I tried to log into the registry website.
		There, I was greeted with a changed login form that asked for my email address instead of my username.
		According to both my memory and the data in my password manager, the site used to ask for a username, not an email address.
		What email address had they associated with my account?
		I tried the one in the whois records, and I was told that one was wrong, and I tried my main email address, and ws told that one also was wrong.
		So I submitted a support ticket to the registry too.
		They replied very quickly, asking what my domain name was, which should have been pretty obvious given the email address I submitted the ticket under.
		The site wouldn&apos;t let me reply though, saying I had failed to fill the &quot;name&quot; and &quot;email address&quot; fields, which weren&apos;t even present on the page.
		I tried copying those fields from the new ticket form, so as to have a good chance of getting the field names correct, and that didn&apos;t work either.
	</p>
	<p>
		Frustrated about having to leave the support people hanging on an issue I&apos;d brought up, I tried logging into the email account from the Web interface and sending an email from there.
		Oddly, it worked.
		The webmail interface it totally janky though, and I couldn&apos;t even get my email into the plain text format.
		The support ticket page wasn&apos;t updating though, so I wasn&apos;t sure if it was getting through
		Near the end of the day, I checked my inbox again to see if the email provider had written me back yet, and they hadn&apos;t, but I also couldn&apos;t find the letter telling me I was locked out of the account.
		What in Squiddy&apos;s name was going on?
		At first, I thought I&apos;d messed up and reread one of the old letters about getting locked out.
		But that wasn&apos;t right.
		I submitted a new ticket because of what I&apos;d read, so the automated letter telling me I&apos;d submitted a new ticket should be there, regardless of whether I&apos;d submitted it due to my own error.
		I&apos;d seen the letter too, and had used it as a point of reference for other letters I&apos;d gotten today.
		Come to think of it, I&apos;d used the lock-out letter as a point of reference too.
		But both were mysteriously gone.
		It was like they&apos;d never locked me out and I&apos;d never asked for help with the issue.
		Creepy.
		Did they delete these letters on me?
		Are they deleting other letters on me too?
	</p>
	<p>
		Anyway, with no indication that I&apos;d ever been locked out this time, let alone that I might still be locked out, I tried sending myself a letter.
		It got through.
		So I tried emailing the domain registry again, then checking the ticket page.
		Now, my first response was showing up, but not my second.
		It must just take several hours for the page to update, as I checked it several times throughout the day.
		Well, that second letter&apos;s going to be a bit embarrassing when it shows up on the ticket page.
	</p>
	<p>
		Also of note, it seems The <code>//st.</code> registry is now asking for telephone numbers from people registering names.
		How disappointing.
		That means I need to drop their $a[TLD] from my list of my recommended $a[ccTLD]s.
		I&apos;m not sure if entering a telephone number is actually required though.
		If it is, I also need to drop them from my list of usable $a[ccTLD]s.
		I&apos;ll be using a $a[TLD] I no longer consider usable.
		There&apos;s the chance they&apos;ll start demanding a telephone number when they go to fix my account, too.
		If so, I might be in for some problems.
		I paid thousands of euros for this domain, and if they revoke it because I&apos;m unable to supply a telephone number for the account, I&apos;m going to be <strong>*royally*</strong> ticked off.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="diet">
	<h2>Dietary intake</h2>
	<p>
		For breakfast, I had 82 grams of cereal and 156 grams of soy milk.
		For lunch, I had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with eight potato nuggets.
		For dinner, I had a 301-gram smoothie.
		I also snacked on 203 grams of pretzels today.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="drudgery">
	<h2>Drudgery</h2>
	<p>
		My discussion post for the day:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			That was an excellent description of ray-casting and ray-tracing.
			In particular, you make a great point about real-time rendering.
			As you said, ray-tracing isn&apos;t feasible for real-time rendering, because the computational expense is just too high.
			Ray-tracing is so much slower than ray-casting, and it just can&apos;t usually be pulled off as quickly as you&apos;d need it to be if you can&apos;t render the graphics long in advance of when you need them.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
</section>
<section id="Minetest">
	<h2>Minetest</h2>
	<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_3.0/minetest.net./weblog/2019/08/13.png" alt="A short bridge between cliff faces" class="framed-centred-image" width="1024" height="600"/>
	<p>
		I tested the code for the infinite counter.
		A bug in the counter caused it to duplicate some digits, making the count skyrocket and your level for the element you just mined max out.
		After fixing one small oversight though, the code seems to work perfectly.
		I added some output to show what&apos;s going on during the process, and it appears to work exactly as intended now.
		Fifteen digits at a time, it&apos;ll work through a non-negative integer of any size to add one to it.
		Normally, it only needs to work with the least-significant, fifteen-digit segment to do that, but it can handle any number of carries to the next segments when need be.
	</p>
	<p>
		I realised today though that when I was testing to see if the standard range was enough, I only tried with stacks that max out at 99, so I tried the calculation again with stacks that max out at 65535, the highest possible maximum stack size.
		The default range provided by Minetest is definitely not enough.
		It&apos;s a little over half what&apos;s needed.
		The extended counter capabilities are necessary if you&apos;ve got my <code>retrostats_mushrooms</code> mod installed and don&apos;t want level-chasing to lead to sudden level loss.
		I might remove the setting and just use the extended counter.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Freya">
	<h2>Codename: Freya</h2>
	<p>
		Because I&apos;m going to be sending the letter draft to my workmate and my siblings, I offered my workmate the choice of choosing a codename for herself for privacy, as I&apos;ll likely be addressing each person in the drafting phase at some point, and making comments such as so-and-so recommended such-and-such.
		My siblings each have codenames, so it&apos;s only fair.
		She chose the name Freya.
		I&apos;ll be using that name here in my journal too, so I no longer need to describe her every time I refer to her.
	</p>
</section>
END
);
